SREERAMULU Vs. RAMESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenent is the petitioner. The first respondent temple is the landlord. The eviction petition tiled by the temple on the ground of default in paymeat of the rents was dismissed by the Head-quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Gudivada, but has been allowed in appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada.

(2.) An extent of 10 acres of land was leased out to the petitioner for six years, namely from Fasli 1380 to Fasli 1385 (both faslts inclusive). The rent agreed between the parties was 100 bags per year. The case of the temple is that for Fasli 1380 the teaant paid only 66 bags and for Fasli 1381 he paid 80 bags. The eviction petition was filed on 1-3-1972 on the basis of default for the above two years. At about the same time, the teaant filed a petition for fixation of fair rent. Both the petitions were tried together and, ia fact, I am told that the evidence in both the cases is common. The Head-quarters Deputy Tahsildar disposed of beth the petitions oa the same day 22-11-1976. In the petition for fixation of fair rent, he determined the fair rent at 50 bags per year. In the eviction petition, he held that on a reading of Sections 3 and 5 of the Andhra Tenancy Act together, the landlord is not entitled to claim anything more than the maximum rent and since (he tenant has already paid more than the maximum rent, the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed. The landlord filed two appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the two orders. In the fair rent matter, the Revenae Divisional Officer allowed the appeal of the temple in part fixing the fair rent at 80 bags. In the eviction appeal, he held that in as much as (be tenant was bound to deposit the agreed rent pending disposal of the petition for fixation of fair rent and since the petitioner has admittedly failed to deposit the same, he is liable to be evicted.

(3.) Bsfore proceeding further, it must be made clear that the petition for fixation of fair rent was file 1 in 1381 fasli, and hence, according to subsection (5) of Section 6, the orders therein take effect only from 1381 F. onwards. So far as 1380 fasli is concerned, the said petition under Sec. 6 has no relevance whatsoever, and cannot be taken into account for any parpose. Against the appellate order in the proceedings for fixation of fait rent, both parties have filed writ petitions in this Court, which are now said to be pending.